As far as I can tell The US immigration policy is more in tune with the Catechism than other "social teaching" on migration uttered by religious figures. CCC 2241, for instance" “Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridi…
As far as I can tell The US immigration policy is more in tune with the Catechism than other "social teaching" on migration uttered by religious figures. CCC 2241, for instance" “Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption.” And, "Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."
Come on. The Trump administration is deporting people without due process. Trump is overstepping "juridical conditions" by not following our own laws regarding immigration.
No, he's not. The right to due process is enshrined in the the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution, and applies to all people within the United States, including foreign nationals, regardless of their immigration status.
You are wrong. The law allows deportation of this category - violent anti-American invaders. Seriously, do you really believe the Brits who invaded us in the war of 1812 needed to be brought into a court!???
Besides, even if your fantasy were true, there is nothing in the law that says they can’t be “prosecuted” in a zoom hearing from their home country.
Bro. You have to prove they are anti-American invaders. Even literal Nazis during WWII got hearings before a judge.
Regarding the British in 1812, you should really read history before citing it as an example. Since one of the casus Belli for going to war the the impressment of Americans in the British navy, there actually *was* some due process give to certain elements in that conflict to ensure we weren’t deporting Americans. (Also, the law wasn’t geared at uniformed soldiers).
It’s possible to have the power and authority to do something and still do that thing in an illegal way. I hope you have a wonderful evening.
“Prove”? They’ve already been (I.e., previously) convicted.
And the Constitutional ‘question’ regarding Executive authority to deport them without more hearings is as yet unsettled. And the same bishops screeching about it are woefully silent about:
Foreigner’s obligation to come here legally, to obey our laws once here legally.
Transies harming others (not to mention themselves).
The pitiable state of knowledge of our Faith among us.
It must be proven that they are part of that particular criminal gang. It’s not a high bar to get over. But it must be done. Their conviction for a crime doesn’t prove that. (As it wasn’t a crime to be part of that gang, it’s impossible for any of them to have a conviction of being a gang member).
I have no comment on your claims About the bishops because I was simply here to point out that the administration is not following appropriate procedural law as they are required to do.
My point is that what you claim to be “law” is not codified, nor precedential. Until it is, claiming that our president is breaking the law is prima facie false.
Ah. Perfect. Thank you. While I would claim that giving Nazis hearing during WWII does set a precedent, I understand from your above comment you disagree with me on that point. Fair enough. I think we may slightly have been talking past each other.
I obviously still disagree with your assessment, but I appreciate the you clarifying where you stood.
So, if I understand correctly... the admin/government needs to follow procedural law (whatever that means) in order to send back an unwanted foreign national, but the same government/admin does not need to follow the same procedural law to let the unwanted foreign national come into the country?
So - to come in there is no requirement, but to send them back there is?
I’m confused by the distinction you are trying to make. In the case of enemy aliens, they either came to this country legally and thereby followed the appropriate procedural law or they came in illegally and did not. But in either case, they are eligible to be removed if an enemy alien.
People coming in the country illegally is not an example of the government failing to follow procedural law.
But I’m still unsure I actually understood your objection, my response at be off base here.
If you are here illegally and in contravention of our laws, what do you propose is appropriate? They can go home and apply for citizenship. That is their due process and what they should have done to begin with.
Hey Brian, I agree that they should have done that in the first place. But Congress and the courts have established a process for how to remove people in the US illegally. What that process does is ensure the person the government alleges is here illegally truly is. It’s the governments burden of proof. It’s not a particularly hard burden to meet, but it does take time and that portion of our court system is seriously underfunded and has a huge backlog.
But either way, the government needs to follow the path Congress established, or, in the case of Enemy Aliens, that the executive branch has committed itself to via precedent (that’s where Stephen Brown and I differ).
There comes a point where pragmatism needs apply. During the Biden presidency there were….100,000+ coming in per month. I am sorry but there comes a time to shoot first and ask questions later. Let those who feel they were deported despite having established they had a right to be here for to the US consulate in their country of origin and take it up there. Either way, this is a crisis and I am not interested in media generated tear drop stories when one out of every 30,000 are possibly improperly deported.
I hopefully this comes across as dialogue as opposed to snark or pure argumentation.
First, so what does that have to do with the question re whether the Executive has the authority to remove someone from our country? Listing someone as 'persona non grata' is something all nations exercise - and not necessarily for crimes.
Second, I think you misstate the case in question - was s/he supporting Hamas, for example? In any event, foreigners presence here does not make them immune to deportation. Countries do it rather routinely.
Third, removing those who criminally entered is not a deprivation of any of their rights - but rather a common sense exercise of ours.
//so what does that have to do with the question re whether the Executive has the authority to remove someone from our country?//
It has everything to do with the right, in that it is not absolute as Trump's defenders claim. A President cannot remove people because they refuse to pay him off or grant him sexual favors, or just based on an unproven allegation or for writing a newspaper article critical of some foreign nation.
Foreigners do not have a “right” to be in this country, and deportation is not penal.
If prosecuted for a crime committed here that could result in incarceration, then some ‘rights’ apply (as with all defendants here in criminal cases). Allowing foreigners to enter the U.S. is an administrative act of the Executive Branch. So is rescission of that entrance.
No one, not even America hating voters, is claiming that these terroristic deportees are being sent back because of the scurrilous claims you made about bribery and seploitation.
There is, though, both bribery and sex trafficking on the part of the foreigners bringing others here. So .. are you saying that what the people smuggling rapists are doing is ok?
As far as I can tell The US immigration policy is more in tune with the Catechism than other "social teaching" on migration uttered by religious figures. CCC 2241, for instance" “Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption.” And, "Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."
Come on. The Trump administration is deporting people without due process. Trump is overstepping "juridical conditions" by not following our own laws regarding immigration.
No, he is not. He is following the law.
No, he's not. The right to due process is enshrined in the the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution, and applies to all people within the United States, including foreign nationals, regardless of their immigration status.
You are wrong. The law allows deportation of this category - violent anti-American invaders. Seriously, do you really believe the Brits who invaded us in the war of 1812 needed to be brought into a court!???
Besides, even if your fantasy were true, there is nothing in the law that says they can’t be “prosecuted” in a zoom hearing from their home country.
Bro. You have to prove they are anti-American invaders. Even literal Nazis during WWII got hearings before a judge.
Regarding the British in 1812, you should really read history before citing it as an example. Since one of the casus Belli for going to war the the impressment of Americans in the British navy, there actually *was* some due process give to certain elements in that conflict to ensure we weren’t deporting Americans. (Also, the law wasn’t geared at uniformed soldiers).
It’s possible to have the power and authority to do something and still do that thing in an illegal way. I hope you have a wonderful evening.
“Prove”? They’ve already been (I.e., previously) convicted.
And the Constitutional ‘question’ regarding Executive authority to deport them without more hearings is as yet unsettled. And the same bishops screeching about it are woefully silent about:
Foreigner’s obligation to come here legally, to obey our laws once here legally.
Transies harming others (not to mention themselves).
The pitiable state of knowledge of our Faith among us.
Etc.
Etc.
It must be proven that they are part of that particular criminal gang. It’s not a high bar to get over. But it must be done. Their conviction for a crime doesn’t prove that. (As it wasn’t a crime to be part of that gang, it’s impossible for any of them to have a conviction of being a gang member).
I have no comment on your claims About the bishops because I was simply here to point out that the administration is not following appropriate procedural law as they are required to do.
My point is that what you claim to be “law” is not codified, nor precedential. Until it is, claiming that our president is breaking the law is prima facie false.
Ah. Perfect. Thank you. While I would claim that giving Nazis hearing during WWII does set a precedent, I understand from your above comment you disagree with me on that point. Fair enough. I think we may slightly have been talking past each other.
I obviously still disagree with your assessment, but I appreciate the you clarifying where you stood.
So, if I understand correctly... the admin/government needs to follow procedural law (whatever that means) in order to send back an unwanted foreign national, but the same government/admin does not need to follow the same procedural law to let the unwanted foreign national come into the country?
So - to come in there is no requirement, but to send them back there is?
I’m confused by the distinction you are trying to make. In the case of enemy aliens, they either came to this country legally and thereby followed the appropriate procedural law or they came in illegally and did not. But in either case, they are eligible to be removed if an enemy alien.
People coming in the country illegally is not an example of the government failing to follow procedural law.
But I’m still unsure I actually understood your objection, my response at be off base here.
If you are here illegally and in contravention of our laws, what do you propose is appropriate? They can go home and apply for citizenship. That is their due process and what they should have done to begin with.
Hey Brian, I agree that they should have done that in the first place. But Congress and the courts have established a process for how to remove people in the US illegally. What that process does is ensure the person the government alleges is here illegally truly is. It’s the governments burden of proof. It’s not a particularly hard burden to meet, but it does take time and that portion of our court system is seriously underfunded and has a huge backlog.
But either way, the government needs to follow the path Congress established, or, in the case of Enemy Aliens, that the executive branch has committed itself to via precedent (that’s where Stephen Brown and I differ).
There comes a point where pragmatism needs apply. During the Biden presidency there were….100,000+ coming in per month. I am sorry but there comes a time to shoot first and ask questions later. Let those who feel they were deported despite having established they had a right to be here for to the US consulate in their country of origin and take it up there. Either way, this is a crisis and I am not interested in media generated tear drop stories when one out of every 30,000 are possibly improperly deported.
I hopefully this comes across as dialogue as opposed to snark or pure argumentation.
Writing a newspaper column critical of the government of Israel does not make one a "violent anti-American invader."
Never claimed it did.
But such a person is among Trump's deportees.
First, so what does that have to do with the question re whether the Executive has the authority to remove someone from our country? Listing someone as 'persona non grata' is something all nations exercise - and not necessarily for crimes.
Second, I think you misstate the case in question - was s/he supporting Hamas, for example? In any event, foreigners presence here does not make them immune to deportation. Countries do it rather routinely.
Third, removing those who criminally entered is not a deprivation of any of their rights - but rather a common sense exercise of ours.
//so what does that have to do with the question re whether the Executive has the authority to remove someone from our country?//
It has everything to do with the right, in that it is not absolute as Trump's defenders claim. A President cannot remove people because they refuse to pay him off or grant him sexual favors, or just based on an unproven allegation or for writing a newspaper article critical of some foreign nation.
Foreigners do not have a “right” to be in this country, and deportation is not penal.
If prosecuted for a crime committed here that could result in incarceration, then some ‘rights’ apply (as with all defendants here in criminal cases). Allowing foreigners to enter the U.S. is an administrative act of the Executive Branch. So is rescission of that entrance.
No one, not even America hating voters, is claiming that these terroristic deportees are being sent back because of the scurrilous claims you made about bribery and seploitation.
There is, though, both bribery and sex trafficking on the part of the foreigners bringing others here. So .. are you saying that what the people smuggling rapists are doing is ok?
B I N G O !!! ( How’s that for a ‘pre vat 2’ word?)
But, seriously, you quoted one of the most ignored (often deliberately) statements of the Catechism!
And ditto the difference (not mere distinction!) between immigration and invasion.